What is Islamization of Science?

Some eight or ten years back, I came across some articles on Islamization of Science. Some of them were authored by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Iranian contemporary philosopher who commands respect all over the world for his work on philosophy of Islam. I was naturally attracted to his work and I wanted to comprehend what exactly were the objectives of those who were engaged in Islamizing science. Nasr’s writings were general and usually expressed in scholarly phraseology but they neither explained succinctly as to what Islamization of science was or how it would be prosecuted. His discourse was foggy and philosophically enigmatic. He somehow wanted to bring the science in the fold of Islam (which is nearly impossible because science, at least physical science, is totally different from Islam or any other religion) or put a label of Islam on science. As if by affixing 786 on the forehead of science, the objective of Islamizing will be accomplished. Another fact that intrigued me was that all the papers and articles that came to my attention were written by the philosophers, sociologists, theologians, etc.; none of them was written by a physical scientist (a physicist, chemist, biologist, molecular biologist, etc.). The writers who apparently didn’t have first hand knowledge and experience of the scientific method were suggesting vague methods of Islamizing science.

I continued with my search for more contributions in the hope that I might come across some work of the physical scientists on this topic but I failed in my search. My search however brought me to Leif Stenberg who had written a Ph.D. thesis on this topic and later published a book “The Islamization of Science: Four Muslim Positions Developing an Islamic modernity”. I could not find this book.

A short article by Stenberg however informed me of the four Muslim scholars whose positions he had considered in his thesis. They were Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ziauddin Sardar, Ismail Raji al-Faruqi, and a French convert Maurice Bucaille who had acquired a great deal of prominence in the Muslim world after writing his book “La Bible, le Coran et la Science”. In spite of my concerted efforts, I could not comprehend the goal of the intellectual campaign of Islamizing science or of the methodology to be used for this purpose. True, the authors had written lengthy papers but they did not define in clear and comprehendible terms what Islamizing of science was. I wondered if the goal was to Islamize physical sciences together with social sciences, or what? If they aimed at Islamizing physics, for instance, how would they do it? How will they Islamize Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? Then there are chemistry, biology, micro-biology and the whole lot. They did not mention any of these disciplines individually but lumped them together in science. Are they going to leave Newton’s laws of motion alone or are they going to stick an Islamic label on them also and baptize them Islamically, I wondered? There were a whole host of questions that mystified me and I wanted to find some answers. None of the material that I could lay hands on helped me. So I left Islamization alone and got busy with other things. By the way, I would like to mention that at that time I did not have much knowledge of post-modernism and the Science Wars that were being waged furiously particularly in the U.S. I learned about Sokal’s hoax after a few years of my first encounter with Islamization of science.

A couple of weeks ago, I was looking for a book which I knew would be in my daughter’s collection. So I went to her room, didn’t find the book I was looking for but came upon “Islamization of Knowledge” (1), which was published by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). Faruqi, one of the four scholars whom Stenberg had considered, helped found IIIT. When I saw the book, my old dormant interest was rekindled and I thought I might find some new insights and may be the answer, which had eluded me for so long, in this book.

I started browsing the book. Although I learned quite a few new facts, my original question (What is Islamization of Science?) remained still unanswered. The book consists of 126 pages yet it did not describe in clear and specific terms how to Islamize knowledge which includes physical sciences. There was no example of any science, which had been Islamized. The description is broad, general, unspecific and theological. It is not a document of scientific precision and accuracy. The book has not mentioned any physical science by naming it. For example, I didn’t find any mentioning of theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, electromagnetic theory and to top all of them there was no mention of the unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions for which Abdus Salam got the Nobel Prize. Before this part of quantum mechanical theory could be justifiably (? - Salam shared his Nobel with Weinberg and Glashow) claimed as Islamic science, Salam was excommunicated from Islam. The Muslim theologians balk if any body calls Salam a Muslim.

My further search led me to the book “Crisis in the Muslim Mind,” (2) which exists on the internet under the umbrella of IIIT. In Chapter V, under “Islamization, Science, and Technology,” it states, “It is therefore extremely important for Muslims to realize that not all of Western knowledge and science is objective in nature. It is not difficult to see how the social sciences are clearly subjective, it should not be difficult to see how the hard sciences are (not) really any different in this respect. If there is a difference, it is one of degree only.” This is the stance of post-modernism which our scholars have used for the purpose of Islamization. If the hard sciences are subjective, they can be screwed. But did any body find the need to determine how the hard sciences were not objective? Did they find different “laws of motion” in the Islamic world from those in England, home of Newton who formulated them, or in the western world? The foundation of the physical sciences is their objectivity. Such a statement does not diminish the physical sciences but does show the ignorance of those who are making such statements.

Then the author goes on to say, “There is no way to speak truthfully about objectivity in science other than from Islamic perspective.” Is that the reason that there are no Muslim scientists of note in the world? May Allah protect us from our own ignorance and the sense of self-righteousness.

What is Islamization of Science?

Before dwelling on this question in any detail, let me mention that “the phrase ‘Islamization of Knowledge was first used and proposed by the Malaysian scholar Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas in his book ‘Islam and Secularism’,” (3).

I thought to find an answer to this mysterious question, a good starting point should be Stenberg’s book. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find it; it’s out of print and none of my area libraries has a copy in stock. Perforce, I had to depend on reviews of Stenberg’s book. In this respect, two sources were particularly helpful. One of them is Stenberg’s article (4) “The Islamization of Science or the Marginalization of Islam” and the other is Muzaffar Iqbal’s review of Stenberg’s book (5).

Discussing the neutrality of science, Stenberg wrote, “Both Sardar and Nasr argue that science is not neutral and that it is western in character. Sardar’s conclusion is that science therefore is bound to a certain culture. Therefore, it is also possible to create an Islamic science.” If science developed by the Muslim scientists is to be called Islamic science, sure, it can be created if the Muslim scientists concentrate and produce some original work in science. But this sort of symbolization is apocryphal. Science is sometimes called western because mostly the westerners (including Christians, Jews, atheists and others) worked to develop it. Science itself is not inherently so conditioned that it can only be developed by the westerners. Science is neutral in as much as any body can develop it. In our times, significant contributions have been made by Chinese, Japanese, Russians, Indians and a Pakistani scientist who was denigrated in his own country because he did not belong to the mainstream Islam. Science in itself is without religion (it’s secular); it has no nationality and is sexless.

Sardar’s perception of science is revealing of probably his leanings toward post-modernism. This is evidenced from the above comments of Stenberg and also in the review comments of Muzaffar Iqbal (5). He wrote, “For Sardar, science is not an objective phenomenon or activity but a cultural activity. Modern science is seen as too deeply rooted in the western civilization which in turn is seen as a threat to the Muslim culture and civilization.”


A great deal of confusion was created in the last few decades of the twentieth century in which the post-modernists had claimed that physical science was not objective as believed by the scientists. It was subjective and culture-based like social sciences. They said physical science was socially constructed. Viewed from this perspective, Islamization can have some meaning although it has already been refuted by the scientists. This view was short-lived and is already dead. For more information, see my paper “Is Physical Science Socially Constructed?” chowk.com, February 21, 2004.

Stenberg further tried to elaborate as to what Islamic science is. He (4) wrote, “In their (Nasr, Sardar, and others) approach, one important task is to establish the true interpretation of the word of Allah in order to live the perfect life in accordance with the Islamic tradition. Science must, therefore, be Islamic. In its correct shape it will reveal the true understanding of nature, and increase our comprehension of the creation. Science has a meaning. To be noted here is that science that is in opposition to the Quran will not be accepted. It is not a good science. Science becomes good automatically when it is in accordance with the Quranic text,” This view is so archaic that it is amazing to know that people still entertain it. Quran is not a book of science. You cannot reject a theory of science because Quran does not validate it; it has its validation from empirical evidence. No wonder, the Muslims are still in doldrums. There is another point to consider. Science in itself is not good or bad. The humans who use it make it good or bad.

Stenberg concluded with the remarks, “At stake for the four voices in the discourse is not the modernization of Islam. To them the question concerns the Islamization of the modernity.” It is unfortunate because realistically such a task is nearly impossible.

Even the creationists do a better job of defending Christianity against Darwin’s theory of evolution than those who are proclaiming to Islamize science. According to the Muslim theological view expressed above, there is no need to defend religion against theory of evolution; it is waste of time because theory of evolution is simply not Islamic science. Hence not acceptable, period. Some others have gone to extreme and ridiculous lengths to find support for evolution in Quran.

This kind of approach for Islamizing science is not scientific; it is theological. It also does not mean that there is any other scientific approach to Islamize science. Such attempts are totally retrogressive. If the Muslims truly want to advance in science, they should do science. Religion is not science. Those who do science may believe in any religion; it is their personal concern. Belief in a religion is not a pre-requisite for doing science. As a matter of fact, some notable scientists who were born Jews, Christians, etc. lost their faith after making noteworthy contributions to science. Dirac was an atheist and so is Weinberg. Their contributions in quantum mechanics are great and beautiful. By separating religion from science, its (religion’s) practical usefulness is in no way diminished. The Muslims should recognize this obvious fact and should move on.

Conclusion

The methodology for Islamizing science as postulated by various Muslim scholars is not clear. Their discourse is muddled and inaccurate. These proposals are at best a theological discourse having no relation to the hard sciences. At their worst, they are the result of confused and emotional but ambitious wishes and desires. At best, they fantasize a utopian adventure leading nowhere.

If the Muslim world accepts that science is a worthwhile pursuit and worthy of acquisition and further development for its own sake, there shouldn’t be any need for Islamizing it. The fundamental laws of nature that science has discovered are not characteristic of any religion or culture. Ethics of hard science is different from any of other disciplines.

Laplace is reported to have presented a copy of his book “Mechanique Celeste” to emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon had been informed that Laplace’s book contained no mention of God. Napoleon asked Laplace, “They tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe and have never even mentioned its creator. “I had no need of that hypothesis,” said Laplace. And that is the honest truth.

The fact is that science works fine without the hypothesis of divine intervention. Those who are spending days and nights in doing science know this fact. To bring God into science is a step in the wrong direction.

Science does not have any religion but the scientists do. Many of them are atheists also. When Professor Salam learned that he had won the Nobel, he prostrated in his namaz and thanked Allah for honoring him with the award. His science did not have Allah in it.

While the objective of Islamizing science may appear laudable and emotionally uplifting, it is unachievable. On the other hand, a better way of Islamizing may perhaps be proselytizing the scientists instead of science. They may be coaxed to recite the kalmah and become Muslims; it might work.


References

1.“Islamiztion of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan,” International Institute of Islamic Thought, Herndon, Virginia, USA, 1989.
2.“Crisis in the Muslim Mind,” tr. Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1993,http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/crisis_in_th e_muslim_mind/ch5.html.
3.Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, “Islam and Secularism,” quoted in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_knowledge.
4.L eif Stenberg, “The Islamization of Science or the Marginalization of Islam: The Position of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Ziauddin Sardar,” http://www.hf.uib/smi/paj/stenberg.html.
5.Muzaffar Iqbal, review of “The Islamization of Science: Four Muslim Positions Developing an Islamic Modernity,” http://www.cis-ca.org/reviews/4-pos.html.